About your Search

20121128
20121206
SHOW
Cavuto 16
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 154
CNNW 134
FOXNEWSW 134
SFGTV 117
SFGTV2 112
FBC 87
CSPAN2 50
CURRENT 48
CNBC 45
CSPAN 44
KPIX (CBS) 37
COM 36
KQED (PBS) 29
KGO (ABC) 27
KTVU (FOX) 26
KNTV (NBC) 16
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 1170
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,179 (some duplicates have been removed)
support the election? >> you mean take the word "public" out of 2? the definition of "support?" >> i guess that would be redundant. >> i think there is some merit in thinking about taking the word "public" out of the definition of "support." because why would we allow people to take private -- spend money on private actions encouraging someone to run without reporting that? >> we don't want to be in the business of determining whether the expenditure from such an entity took place in a living room or a conference room (run . >> run for office and i will give you this $50,000. >> mr. st. croix you think it would meet the goals more effectively? i guess i don't understand why it matters where it is? >> i don't think it matters. >> do we need "public?" >> well if it were just a prohibition on support, that would -- i'm thinking outloud here -- that would be going too far because anybody can say to somebody else, i think you would make a good mayor, i hope you run. what makes it acceptable, is that it's the transfer of money behind that speech that allows us to get involved
to be a caretaker who was to fill the vacancy until the next election could be held. there were at least three sump committees, i think maybe four and some of them raised good sums of money. and my concern was that they were functioning as campaigns without actually being campaigns. the commission decided that they weren't campaigns under current law. but i think the commission agreed that the raising and spending of that size of money was not designed by the voters to be something that went unregulated. so the commission directed the staff to put together some provisions that would, as i said, regulate committed are designed to draft, particularly those that raise tangible sums of money. the reason for that is that a citywide campaign aimed at a single person still reaches people citywide, and would conceivably impact their decisions at the polling place based on the fact that you get someone to run for office by extolling their virtues. so these rectally simple to follow will treat under our law, such campaigns, such committees, excuse me, as primarily formed campaigns and therefore, report th
collected $1,000 from five friends, which i was told to use to try to convince somebody to run for elective office, and i spent that money by taking them out to -- entertaining them for an evening, that this would not be covered. that would not be covered about i this. i don't know if we're intending to know about that kind of of activity nort. but i don't think we're intending to cover that. . >> in that situation you are not spending money to convince the voters. >> true. >> so i think leaving out the word "public" is okay. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners on decision point 1? public comment? >> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it slightly to say, "in order to support the qualification of an identifiable person for city elective office." because that presumes that that person has not yet qualified, and that the purpose of the endeavor is to have them be a qualified candidate. it's not to support the e
election that year, his senate seat would have become open. so the governor of massachusetts, the republican, mitt romney, would have been able to appoint somebody to fill john kerry's senate seat. the mts legislature totally dominated by democrats was cognizant that the governor would probably pick a republican to fill the seat if kerry got elected president. so the massachusetts state legislature decide d to change the law. they changed the law so that only a special election could fill a vacant seat. until then, the seat would have to be empty. mitt romney tried to veto that new law. but the legislature overrode his veto, thereby stripping mitt romney of his power to choose a replacement. that became a mute point because john kerry didn't win so he stayed on as senator. but then fast forward fife years. 2009. new president barack obama, the country embroiled in a big debate over national health reform. those against it were against it to the point of rage. and those wo who wanted it were excited to be on the cusp of achieving something they had failed to achieve for decade
immigration system it cannot be what it is destined to be. >> a few days after the election when the republicans looked at the figures from the president how mitt romney had done with hispanic voters, there was like a 44-point gap. they said we need to do something aggressive on immigration. but it wasn't a couple weeks. republicans couldn't agree on what needs to be done, the fervor seemed to have already cooled. how do you get your own party on the same page, let alone bring on democrats? >> i disagree. i don't think that's what is happening. what is happening, the concept of immigration reform, there is a lot of consensus. the details of immigration reform need to be examined. i'll give you an example. we have millions of people waiting to come here legally and they come to my office and say we have done it the right way, waited, paid the fees, but you are telling me if i came here illegally it would have been faster? it didn't seem right. that is the kind of debate we are going to have. on the ag worker-guest worker, there are labor unions that are not in favor of a guest wor
in how washington, d.c. is going to vote in the election. but in the real world, out in the rest of the country, the president just won reelection and his party, the democrats picked up seats in the house and senate at the same time. before this election, which the democrats did very well and the republicans did not do well, before this election happened, the republican speaker of the house john boehner had proposed that revenues should be raised by this much. this was his pre-election offer. after the election, which his party lost, after contesting on these grounds, after the election where his side lost, look at his new offer. now he's offering this much new revenue. his offer has gotten worse. you cannot have what i offered you before the election. what election? that's how the republican house speaker is playing the game this week. maybe in the world of the beltway and the sunday morning talk shows, maybe that makes sense. in the real world, here's what happened. here's the bigger picture. our economy broke very, very badly. not long ago on a historic scale. now in the real
won the election on that premise. but speaker boehner he seemses to have forgotten that. >> they must have forgot and then republicans continue to hold the majority in the house. but, you know, the president's idea of a negotiation is, roll over and do what i ask. we need to find common ground and we need to find it quickly. >> speaker boehner claimses he's looking for common ground. but right now he's not even in the right ballpark. his problem is that the political ground has shifted for him and his tea partyiers. joining me now is michelle cottle, washington correspondent for "newsweek "and "the daily beast" and ezra cline who is a policy analyst. thank you both for coming on the show tonight. >> thank you. >> thanks, rev. >> michelle, let me start with you. the president ran on raising taxes on the rich and he won on that premise. why didn't the gop get the message? >> oh, they got the message but this is high posturing season. they have to get in there and be as intransident as they possibly can. the president has said that he wants tax rates for the wealthy on the table. so they
's lead, the winning argument. president obama won the election. he won the debate on fairness and he's winning this fight in washington and now even some republicans admit it. in the election, 65 million americans voted for fairness. they stood with the president who says everyone should pay their fair share, that there's just something fundamentally wrong with the millionaire paying less in tacks than his or her secretary. president obama drove that point home again today demanding that the rich pay more so the burden doesn't fall on the middle class. >> our first job is to make sure that taxes on middle class families don't go up and since we all theoretically agree on that, we should get that done. i know some of this might sound familiar to you because we talked about this a lot during the campaign. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was a major debate in the presidential can campaign and congressional campaigns all across the country. >> that's what this election was all about, americans were with him on election day. and they are still with him now. a newark ton post
guessed at, the results of which played out in the numbers of election night. the nasty, anti-immigrant politics, the attitude toward that 47%, the failure to turn out the white male vote, the reason romney picked ryan, and the wild prelude to the clint eastwood performance. tonight right here on "hardball," the dark aroma of what lies now beneath the dirt so we can understand what it looks like to think and feel your way into an historic disaster. with me are jeff zeleny with "the new york times" and susan milligan who is contributing editor at "u.s. news & world report." you laugh. it's not funny. you both attended that harvard institute of policy forum. last week with top advisers from both the obama and romney campaigns. they just released, by the way, tonight, we have the audio recordings of that not filmed event. we have a real autopsy of what went on behind the scenes during the primaries, the conventions, and the general election on the romney side. let's start with the republican race for the nomination. romney's campaign manager matt rhoades was asked whether his can
to pound a sense at into elected leaders. evan thomas has been out of town promoting his book, "ike's bluff." terrific christmas present. >> thank you. >> as i recall, we were having the same composition we are having now. >> like groundhog day. talk about bluffing -- they will be complete unreasonable until the last second where they agreed. while they are bluffing, we could go over the cliff. >> where are we headed, mark? >> one side says that raising tax rates is an example, the other side says we will not balance the budget on the backs of students and seniors without asking those who make as much as i do not to pay another diamond. we are in the chest thumping a stage of this negotiation. we are interested in the product rather than the process. the process does the fact of the product and you don't want hostilities to make the final product unreachable. >> nina, there were a bunch of c.l.'s in town saying please do something so we can plan for our future. >> the difference between this and the battle over raising the debt level before is that republicans, i think, actually want to fig
to have you. >>> in the wake of the 2010 midterm elections, a fight broke out in washington over what had been a routine piece of washington business. republicans threatened to vote to force the country to default on its loans. this he were not going to raise the debt ceiling, remember. president obama responded in a prime time address to the nation. he asked the american people to get involved in that fight he was having with the republicans. he asked the american people to get involved directly. >> the american people may have voted for divided government but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. so i'm asking you all to make your voice heard. if you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of congress know. if you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message. >> let your member of congress know. send that message said the president. the american people did. so many american people did that congressional websites and phone lines crashed after the president's speech. house phone circuits were so overwhelmed that an alert went
. >> not only are we fresh off an election, which this stuff was intensely litigated. we're not talking about subsidiary issues that didn't get enough attention. we're talking about the stuff that was the first stuff that got said in every debate. the position of raising taxes on the top 2% is incredibly popular. it even polls among the majority of some republicans in some polls. cutting medicare, medicaid is is not popular. in fact, much of the election was over each side trying to convince the american people that it was the other side that wanted to go after medicare specifically. >> yes, absolutely. >> so now we have to do something about the cost of medicare but no one wants to be the first person to come out and say, we're taking the scissors and -- >> giving no specifics, are they hoping it's boehner, hoping that the democrats will come back with a more conservative proposal, or is he wanting them to say something so he can just disagree with whatever it is? >> i think it depends on what we think it is that the president is hoping for. the fact is, the president could go over this fisc
this election to change the footing we decided on after 9/11? some of the stuff the president carried over? >> indisputably. that's what people are hopeful about. is this going to be a predicate? an opportunity for the president now that he doesn't have to stand for reelection? to do some things people hoped he would have done in his first term. certainly shut down guantanamo. there are clear issues here of the presidency hopefully snapping back into the shape it had prior to 9/11. that's the hope of lots of constitutional scholars. it has not done that up to now. most of the powers granted or obtained by the bush administration have conveyed, if you will, to the obama administration. so the question is this the beginning of the president creating a new normal, as johnson says, in which we are not in a state of war and the president is not executing war powers in a consistent and endless way? >> ron, you are a student of leadership, both a student of good leadership and bad leadership. i feel like leaders good and bad can generally be counted on to never give up power that they have been g
lost. that was your position before the election, and you lost. mitt romney campaigned on keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy, and he lost. and he promised to do what john boehner is doing right now, and he lost. how about some respect for the electorate? how about seeing what the 2012 presidential debate was about? obama championed tax fairness and won. republicans championed protecting that 2%, ignoring the 47% he talked about, and they lost. today boehner said he's willing to raise revenues by the same amount he agreed to back in august of 2011, the last time they had this fight. again, he's willing to act like the election never happened. no wonder. again, he lost. joining me is joy reid of the grio and howard fineman of the "huffington post." joy, you're chuckling because it is weirdly true. it's almost like groundhog day, this guy, boehner, he's not a bad guy, but he's operating on a bad thought here. the election didn't happen. >> it's incredible. it's amazing watching john boehner reach for anything, simpson/bowles which, by the way, assumed that the tax cuts for the top
. when i come out the day after the election and make it clear that republicans will put revenue on the table, i took a great risk. and then the white house spent three weeks trying to develop a proposal, and they send one up here that calls for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, calls for a little -- not even $400 billion in cuts, and they want to have this extra spending that's actually greater than the amount they're willing to cut. i mean, it was not a serious proposal. and so right now we're almost nowhere. >> let me start with -- let me start with joy on this thing because you and i often agree. if we don't, we don't, and we'll live with that. but this whole thing here, i think boehner has never accepted the fact that the rates have to go up at the top. there's something about deductions and all this finesse. they lost the debate. if there's any issue that came out of the campaign, the president is dead right on this, he made his case clear. the polls show it. the public wants to have some tax fairness. they don't want the top 2% to hold this thing up. boehner doesn't want to hear
. welcome back. you know, in the weeks leading up to the recent election america's business leaders offered some dired predictions. >> four more year of obama will mean that we're going to have to tighten our belts even further, layoff more feel. >> these people just want to work in honor and dignity and this president is desaing that. we're going cancel their health care. >> i cannot pay my staff and pay all these taxes. there is only so much blood you can get out of a turnip. (laughter) >> jon: i don't think you can get any blood out of a turnip unless-- oh my god, those weren't turn is, oh. some business owners were explicit that an obama re-election would in their eyes doom their blood turnip businesses. but now that obama has been re-elected how have the john creators amongst us reacted. we turn to our deranged billionaire, john hodgman, john. >> oh, how dare you. >> jon: what. >> how dare you applaud me now after you shiftless moochers rejected everything that is good and right and wealthy in this world. >> jon: you're still up set that mitt romney lost. >> i don't know how, i don't u
for president instead. as a republican against president obama in this past election election. and it's all on tape. this is se lashs almost to the point. we're talking about general petraeus. long-time republican, possible contender, the man who just resigned from running the cia in a sex scandal we still don't understand. here he is on tape talking about how he will have the fox news chairman run his campaign and the owner of fox news will bankroll his campaign and he raises the issue of his wife. there's a certain level of interest in this new tape because of who is on it. beyond that, there's the media factor. here's the fox news channel trying to recruit a presidential candidate for the republican party. the fox news chairman telling bob woodward once he was reporting on this, "i thought the republican field in the primaries needed to be shaken up and petraeus might be a good candidate." he said that on the record. after being caught doing it on tape. which means the fox news channel seriously is not like anything news. they officially are just a media arm of the republican party. they
, that, we've got a very important update on the election night numbers that gave us a winner. they've been changing steadily as the states keep on counting. and some important ways the selection perhaps is now going to get characterized. good morning from washington. it's thursday, november 29, 2012. in case you've been in a bunker all night, the winning powerball numbers are 5, 16, 22, 23, 29. the powerball number itself is 6. the reason i'm here and the reason my entire staff showed up for work today is because nobody here won. let's get right to my first reads of the morning. this morning, mitt romney comes to washington. the last time president obama and romney came face to face they were locked in a bitter fight for the presidency. today they'll try to bury the hatchet as the president makes good on his election night promise to engage with romney, one' elaborated on in his first post election news conference. >> i do think he did a terrific job running the olympics. he presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that i actually agreed with and so it would be intere
of political opportunity right now in washington after this election to maybe some change some of the very basic footing that we decided on after 9/11? some of the stuff the president carried over from the previous administration? >> indisputably. that's what people are hopeful about. looking at this comment, it's being pulled apart word by word tonight, is this going to be a predicate, an opportunity for the president now that he doesn't have to stand for re-election to do some of the things people hoped he would have done in his first term. certainly shut down guantanamo. a big promise he couldn't manage and he pulled back from that. there are clear issues here of the presidency hopefully snapping back into the shape it had prior to 9/11. that's the hope of lots of constitutional scholars. it has not done that up to now. most of the powers granted or obtained by the bush administration have conveyed, if you will, to the obama administration, some calf yet that you mention. so the question is this the beginning of the president creating a new normal, as johnson says, in which we are not i
to read what that means for primarily formed committees supporting a candidate seeking the city elective office for which the draft committee is supporting an identifiable person. i really like what we're doing here. i'm just having trouble figuring out what that means. is it that they are filing for a candidate? are they filing for the committee? i'm sorry, i am just having trouble with the language. >> that is the problem with existing law. there is no candidate. therefore, there is no campaign. and we have to identify what that is, because the entities don't exist in current law. >> sorry. if i may, is the intent to say that draft committees are subject to the same filing requirements is that the same intent? >> yes. >> i was going to suggest language like that. >> does it need to say "draft committees that are supporting an identifiable person?" >> no, because that is the definition of the draft committee. >> well, it is here. i think commissioner lui's suggestion makes sense draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings reports or statements as for or
pounding in the election, is their repeated attempts to reach out to the women folk. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: somebody in the republican party pointed out that mitt romney won white women. so that's proof that they don't have a chick problem. >> is that true? >> stephanie: yeah six points worse among -- what do you call -- romney's performance among white women was six points worse than among white men. but he technically did win white women. >> not this white woman. not the white woman i speak with. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: yes, the president won women by double digits. but, yes, the white women apparently love that mittens. >> hum. >> stephanie: here she is in the current news jacki schechner. >> good morning, everybody. the president and vice president are scheduled to meet with state governors at the white house today just after 10:00 am eastern to talk about ways to balance the budget then at 12:30 the president's first post-election interrue. anticipate plenty of discussion about the counteroffer on the fiscal cliff. and the gop would avoid toxin cre
. >>> with the fiscal cliff ticking, friendly territory that got him re-elected. heading to the pennsylvania suburbs with a campaign-style sales pitch to rally support for his proposals. more crucial developments in the middle east where egyptian leaders push a new constitution. >>> and who do you think had the better lunch on thursday? these guys or this guy? joe biden takes costco by storm. does he do anything else? good morning from washington. it's friday, november 30, 2012, and this is "the daily rundown. i'm chris cillizza in today for chuck todd. the president hits the road today to settle his proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff at a toy factory in the pennsylvania suburbs. the president's opening budget bid landed with a thud on the republican side of capitol hill. after meeting with the president's top negotiator treasury secretary tim geithner, some republicans are calling the white house offer a joke. that's a quote, and a fantasy. that's also a quote. leaving the talks in a familiar place, stalemate. >> no substantive progress has been made in the talks between the white house and the hou
, that pretty well describes your party after the shellacking you got in the election. some members of your party are further along in the stages of grief but the republicans all seem to fall somewhere along that spectrum. let's take a look. so first there's denial. as in everything's fine! carry on. none of this is really happening! that's where the majority of the republicans, at least in congress are. but we should cut them a little slack. afterall everybody from peggy noonan to karl rove assured them they would be in the white house by this time so they're understandably shock and distressed and poor speaker john boehner is hopelessly stuck in that stage. his is, of course, willful denial. a stubborn refusal to recognize reality are. but it is denial nonetheless. today, he dug in his heels. he refused to budge. he released a statement blaming the president for the impasse saying "we don't have time for the president to continue shifting the goalposts. we need to solve this problem." in fact, his approach all a
.n. ambassador here, susan rice, and/or is there a surrogate attack against the president who has just been re-elected by people who are embittered by the fact? >> i think it's people who are embittered by the re-election of the president, and i think she's caught in the crosshairs, and i think she's caught in it in a completely unfair way. she used the talking points provided to her and not just to her, those were the talking points prepared by a request from the house intelligence committee. that's who the intelligence community was responding to. she got a copy of those comments, and those are the ones she used, which was entirely appropriate for her to do. >> we'll have to have you back, senator, to talk about something i know you're good on, that's the fiscal cliff. i want to have you on because i trust in you. thank you, kent conrad. >>> coming up, hot new evidence the republicans have learned nada, nothing, from the election they just lost. yesterday you saw the all-white republican chairmanships in the house of representatives. today's story, the marquee name for the republican party next year
would describe them. >> what's the biggest proposal you put on the table since the election in terms of raising revenue from closing loopholes and deductions? >> there's a lot of ways to get there, but you could cap deductions at a percent of income. that would be one way to get there. you could eliminate deductions for the wealthiest. >> let me ask you a couple specifics. would you limit the home mortgage deduction? >> there are a lot of options. i'm not going to debate this. >> really? not going to debate this? so he specifically did not say no on the home mortgage deduction. didn't do that. that's the biggest write off that middle class americans have. nor any specifics on loopholes. give us just one loophole, mr. boehner. can't you get one? our tax code is how many thousands of pages and you can't give us one loophole? well, on tv and on paper, republicans refuse to offer details about just how they are going to get all this revenue. timothy geithner explained why the republicans can't sell the specifics of their plan. >> if republicans would like to go beyond these reforms, they
to vote in a certain way. what about saving all that time and actually doing the job that we elected you to do, which is to sit in a room and get something done. >> is fox news admitting that they are just so yesteryear. get with the program. this is how people communicate. motivate, motivate, motivate. you see, bullies don't like it when you hit back. the president isn't just hitting the campaign trail for a victory lap. he is mobilizing his base, like labor leaders and grassroots organizers. today, leaders from top labor groups were on capitol hill meeting with lawmakers to push for an extension of the middle class tax cuts. they also want to make sure that social benefits are protected, because that's what this election was about. benefit cuts rejected on november 6th. the new poll by "the washington post" and abc news shows. all americans oppose major changes to medicare benefits, including republicans and conservatives. boehner can't win. the most important poll was on november 6th. president obama ran on raising taxes on the wealthiest americans and not hitting beneficiaries of med
revenues on the table just after the election and said we get it. the president won his re- election. we won ours. we have to now come together. here is our proposal to the speaker -- to the president that we were unwilling to give a year and a half ago. >> they know they need to put revenant on the table, but will you come back and give them the entitlement cuts? >> we will take this as a serious matter. this is not a game. we are interested in trying to solve the problem for the american people so that we do not see taxes go up on anybody, so we can engage in reform, get the economy going again. we're not playing a game. that offer yesterday was not serious. thank you. >> next, nancy pelosi answers fiscal cliff questions. this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm here today with my colleague. i invited him here to be with us this afternoon because yesterday i named tim to be the head of the leadership task force of election reform. i believe how we do our policy is directly related to -- it has a direct impact on the policies that we create in congress. our founders risked their
for rejoining us. our next agenda item is an action item. it is the co-chair election. for the position of co-chair, wendy james has successfully executed her leadership role for one year. her position is now up for a vote. we will accept nominations. offered by oneself were nominated by one's colleagues. the first to cue in is co-chair james. >> co-chair: i would like to nominate myself and continue as co-chair for another year and continue to learn how to co-chair. >> (off mic) >> chair: okay. we have one nomination, and one second. do we have any further nominations for the co-chair position? >> yes. >> chair: roland? >> councilmember wong: i like to dominate idell wilson. nominate. (correction) nominate (laughter) >> i would really say, i would be honored. i would like to third, for wendy to have a second year. >> chair: you are declining the nomination? are there any further nominations? seeing none, okay, this is where we have to reserve the public comment. we have a motion on the floor. we have a second. do we have any public comment? check the bridge line, not working. seeing no
in terms of a step forward. we are now elected lgbt peep to office and harvey was such an incredible trail blazer, not? in just getting elected, but in being a great leader and always holding his head high for our community. and i know when i was first sworn into office, one of the things that i always kept in mind was something that i understand harvey to have said, * that when you go into city hall, you walk up the central staircase. you don't walk on one of the side staircases because for our community, it is so important for us to walk up that central staircase and for us to be in the middle of everything and for everyone to know that we are here. and all these years later, we've made a lot of strides in the lgbt community, but we still have so much work to do around hiv issues, around our youth, around discrimination, around transinclusion, and all the things that we know that harvey had he been here today would still be working on and leading on. and, so, we have to keep doing our work. and frankly, we can't take for granted that queer people are going to keep getting elected to off
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,179 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)